think of sampling as the same thing as collage.
it's one thing to just take a photocopy of the mona lisa and say it's your
creation (Puffy Combs or Marcel Duchamp but that's a whole nother ball
and stick em on your own painting, to some artistic effect ... i.e. the
new context brings out a different characteristic in the mona lisa's eyes
or they add an ambience to the piece without just saying "look it's the
mona lisa's eyes" i think it's perfectly reputable.
i did a track where i nicked a flute sample from a rather well known
record (which i will not identify as the track is being released) but
there is no way on earth anybody will identify it because 1) the sample is
like four notes from a phrase of about 16 notes, which appears once in the
song 2) the segment i nicked isn't a "characteristic" of the artist's work
or the song in question. 3) i slowed it down so much you probably wouldn't
guess it was a flute unless i told you 4) i used the sample to create a
completely new melody based on the interaction of the notes played in the
phrase, played back at two different speeds
now tell me. is my artistic integrity at all lessened because I did not
go out and find a real flute player and have him/her play the notes into
my sampler? does the fact that i discovered the tune by exploring
somebody elses record rather than planning it in advance make me less
creative? i guess i would be more creative if i could have imagined the
melody beforehand and then actualized it myself ... creation is by
definition more creative than discovery. but it's a whole different
skillset to be able to manipulate found sounds into a cohesive work.
josh
btw i agree with the original post to which i am replying in that if the
song is good, the technique really doesn't matter. this even applies to
puff daddy ... if you enjoy that Sting song that he jacked, then chances
are you'll enjoy his track based on that riff, even if you know he jacked
the riff. beat-jacking is fucking postmodern, dude.
--
String Theory : Digital Music for Humans
http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 anything@synthesizer.org wrote:
quoted 31 lines For all you flamers out there (aka, those humorless closed-minded
> >For all you flamers out there (aka, those humorless closed-minded
> >tight-assed listmembers who didn't read the Tonya Headon site and laff your
> >asses off): I'm not saying sampling is bad or that Luke Vibert is bad. I'm
> >just saying its sad to see someone use a sample when doing the actual work
> >might have generated more interesting results without too much additional
> >effort.
>
> I love it when intersections like this pop up on the list. In another
> thread, people are discussing a tendency to focus on technique when
> critiquing music, and here we get a perfect example of that.
>
> What we have here is a case of disillusionment and resentment toward an
> artist. The only difference is one piece of information that shattered an
> ideal. There is no reason why he should reinvent the wheel, and there is
> no reason why he can't be considered to be collaborating in a time-delayed
> fashion with the man being sampled. Let the "suffering artist" crap go, it
> never did anyone any good.
>
> The piece sounds the same as when you didn't know it was a sample.
>
> --
> http://www.synthesizer.org/
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org